Suchergebnisse

The study focuses on both theoretical and applied aspects of evidentiary law. The subject of this study is the legal institution of admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings, as well as the legal mechanism for declaring evidence inadmissible. The author relies on the constitutional postulate (Part 3 of Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine) according to which the accusation cannot be based on evidence obtained illegally, as well as on assumptions. Based on this constitutional imperative, it is stated that the prosecution has no right to form charges and go to court if the accusation is based on illegal evidence or subjective assumptions, and emphasizes that the subject who forms the prosecution must operate on legal evidence. Thus, a legal contradiction is revealed between the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine and Part 2 of Article 23 of the CPC of Ukraine regarding the legal nature of evidence in the pre-trial investigation. Given that according to the domestic legal structure, factual data must be recognized as evidence at the stage of pre-trial investigation, there is a legal need to guarantee the right of a person to a fair trial, the introduction of a clear mechanism for verifying factual data for admissibility at the stage of pre-trial investigation. The author argues that such a mechanism should provide effective tools for self-control and neutralization of illegal sources of factual data by both the prosecuting authorities and the court, during the implementation of judicial control over pre-trial investigation in making key decisions to restrict guaranteed rights and freedoms. Keywords: evidence, accusation, suspicion, admissibility of evidence, exclusion from evidence.

Since its founding, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU) has been an integral part of the judiciary and has been an integral part of the unified justice system. After the transformations of 2016, which underwent the Basic Law of Ukraine, the institutional position of the CCU in the system of public authorities has acquired a completely new format. And, as it turns out in practice, the legal status of the CCU is quite difficult to define and articulate. One of the major conceptual changes affecting the institutional status of the CCU was the deprivation of its exclusive role as the sole body of constitutional jurisdiction in Ukraine. The paper reveals deviations from the imperative provisions of Article 5 of the Constitution of Ukraine in matters of the procedure for changing the constitutional order. The negative factor of depriving the CCU of its institutional affiliation with the judiciary significantly limits the application of guarantees of independence and relevant standards for the judiciary. The transformation of the CCU from a judicial body into a "political" one, but with an uncertain constitutional and legal status, opens unlimited opportunities for political "players" to influence the legal positions and independence of both its individual members and the body as a whole. It was found that the transformation of the CCU from a judicial body into a "political" one, but with an uncertain constitutional and legal status, opens unlimited opportunities for political players to influence the legal positions of individual members and the body as a whole. Violation of the foundations of the separation of powers, as the basic algorithm of modern constitutionalism, will inevitably lead to a crisis of public administration and the political system. Therefore, today we need to look for legally correct and balanced ways to eliminate this systemic error and restore the legal constitutional order of Ukraine.

In 2016, a provision appeared in Article 125 of the Basic Law, which stipulated that higher specialized courts may operate in accordance with the law. Filling the content of this wording in, Article 31 of the Law "On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges" (2016) establishes that in the judicial system there are higher specialized courts as courts of first instance to consider certain categories of cases. This category of courts today includes the High Court of Intellectual Property and the High Anti-Corruption Court, activities of which are initiated by the relevant legislation. However, in political circles there was a discussion about the constitutionality of this court and, accordingly, the subject of the right to a constitutional petition questioned a number of provisions of the Law "On the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court" and appealed to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to declare this law unconstitutional. In turn, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine initiated constitutional proceedings on this issue. Familiarization with the legal position of the subject of the constitutional petition indicates that the key issue of this constitutional proceeding concerns the presence of signs of a "special court" (within the meaning of Part 6 of Article 125 of the Constitution of Ukraine) in the mechanism of legislative regulation of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court. In order to find an objective answer to the existing conflict, it is necessary to abstractly identify the main features of a "special" court. To solve such an applied problem, the author of the article turned to the theory and applied provisions of the principle of natural judgment, which was the subject of this study. As a result of the study, the author argues that by giving the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court exclusive jurisdiction over the system of general courts, the legislator has significantly deviated from the permissible limits of constitutional legality. The author singled out and grouped the key features of a special court, which included: 1) Separation of a judicial institution with a separate system of instances for consideration of certain categories of cases selected from the general array (special jurisdiction) or in respect to a separate category of persons. 2) The court, which is entrusted with special, different from other general courts, the purpose and objectives of the activity. 3) A court formed to expedite the resolution of certain categories of cases specific to a certain period; 4) A court in which judges have a special legal status (special tasks in the administration of justice; special professional qualifications (requirements, selection criteria); a special (extraordinary) procedure for the formation of the judiciary, etc. It is seen that the principle of natural judgment – is a fundamental constitutional and legal heritage of civilized humanity, which is designed to protect people, their rights and freedoms from the arbitrariness of the state, and from the use of courts as an instrument of terror and wrongful persecution.